For some, progressivism conveys a message of hope for a better future, for positive change in the way we organize our government and conduct our lives.

To others, progressivism is a morass of big government, bureaucracy and - in the end - a slippery slope toward socialism.

But both of these views leave out something essential. I am here today to shatter each of them.

To do this, we'll need to look into the progressive movement's past. To understand the force that shaped it is to understand the role it plays in society to this day.

Progressivism arose around the turn of the last century, in an economic climate widely referred to as "the gilded age." American industrialism and prosperity were on the rise, leading to a blossoming middle class - and an extreme concentration of wealth and influence in the hands of "robber barons," a minority of super wealthy capitalists.

This concentration of wealth was largely accumulated by the sweat and struggles of the lower class.

This situation, as was generally foretold by Marx and other communist intellectuals, resulted in the most violent intra-state confrontations America had experienced since the Civil War. Google "Ludlow massacre" for one example.

But something Marx and friends hadn't counted on was the American middle class, which was stronger than it had ever been before.

This was the crowd that birthed progressivism. Not the laissez-faire capitalists or the socialists representing, predictably, the interests of the lower classes. Instead, the movement was birthed by the middle class: highly literate, college educated, free enterprisers and professionals.

They realized that neither the unrestricted capitalism of the robber barons, nor the socialism of the labor unions, best protected their interests. What brought progressives of both parties together was a commitment to three broad principles: the removal of special, minority and corrupt influences in government; the restructuring of government to render it less susceptible to minority influences and more democratically responsive; and the conviction that it's the role of government to relieve social and economic distress.

These principles weren't grounded in some altruism of the middle class, but in pragmatism. Progressives wished to stop the corrupting influence they saw the capitalists exerting on government. At the same time, they wanted to use government as a mechanism to placate the lower classes and, in effect, save capitalism from the threat of socialist revolution.

These efforts were an attempt to secure their position in society, away from the encroachment they feared from each socioeconomic direction.

So, is progressivism an altruistic expression of egalitarianism - the belief in the equality of all people - as some on the left would have you believe? No. It is a pragmatic reconciliation of the social and the individual - and a champion of both capitalism and inequality, within limits.

Alternatively, is progressivism a smoke-and-mirrors version of socialism designed to fool us into one day waking up under Stalin's thumb, as some on the right would claim? No. It is a renunciation of socialism. It differs from similar conservative endeavors mainly by urging a positive application of governmental power, in ways designed to prevent the conditions which may lead to socialism - rather than a negative application focusing on ideological grandstanding and curtailment of personal freedoms. On that last one - Google "McCarthyism."

So there we have it: unadorned progressivism. If you are in the middle class (as most of us college types are) and like to ground your politics in pragmatism (as most of us would like to think we do), then it just may be for you.

Daniel DeCarlo, a senior psychology major, writes about modern politics and government.